2021
DOI: 10.1007/s00417-021-05177-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The double-edged role of internal limiting membrane peeling during primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment repair

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

1
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The majority of our patients (87%) received ILM peeling, which makes it impossible to compare the ILM peeling group with the non-peeling group. This bias is explained by the personal experience of our surgeon (JGG), with improved visual outcomes after ILM peeling [ 7 , 9 ]. A minority (14%) of patients showed an attached foveal center, with better functional prognosis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The majority of our patients (87%) received ILM peeling, which makes it impossible to compare the ILM peeling group with the non-peeling group. This bias is explained by the personal experience of our surgeon (JGG), with improved visual outcomes after ILM peeling [ 7 , 9 ]. A minority (14%) of patients showed an attached foveal center, with better functional prognosis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Posterior pole ILM peeling in the absence of posterior pole preretinal PVR has also been advocated. Two studies have found that posterior pole ILM peeling reduces the recurrence of posterior ERM formation, and one study found it reduced the risk of re-detachment [36][37][38][39]. Further study is needed to assess the benefit of posterior pole ILM peeling in cases without posterior pole PVR.…”
Section: Surgical Managementmentioning
confidence: 99%